Problem is, judgement calls about "intent" leave the door wide open to political pressure. The court is allowed, but not required, to take into account "the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person".
Still, My guess is that anybody acting in good faith will quickly put up a disclaimer and link if they're contacted, and precedent will normally make that a reliable test of good faith. Personally, I'd do it without being asked.
Another Problem with One Time Pads...
on
The Code Book
·
· Score: 1
Is that they require both ends of the conversation to have known in advance they want secure communications.
Public key based systems, OTOH, allow two formerly unconnected parties to start a secure conversation from scratch. If they have somebody they both trust for identification, they can even be sure who they're talking to, but even without the latter they can at least have a private conversation.
Slashdot Mirror
Problem is, judgement calls about "intent" leave the door wide open to political pressure. The court is allowed, but not required, to take into account "the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person".
Still, My guess is that anybody acting in good faith will quickly put up a disclaimer and link if they're contacted, and precedent will normally make that a reliable test of good faith. Personally, I'd do it without being asked.
Is that they require both ends of the conversation to have known in advance they want secure communications.
Public key based systems, OTOH, allow two formerly unconnected parties to start a secure conversation from scratch. If they have somebody they both trust for identification, they can even be sure who they're talking to, but even without the latter they can at least have a private conversation.